Although only six out of the eight following individuals listed below can definitively be classed as neurodiverse, they do all nonetheless have a high level of intelligence. By extension of this fact and the fact that they have no small interest in computers, something which has led to charges of one sort or another being brought against them by the government of the United States, it is possible to conclude that they all have a high level of perceptual reasoning. Of course it has taken someone with a high degree of perception to remark upon this.

It might be of interest to note that every one of these individuals are the most significant whistleblowers or hackers of our age and they have all caused no small difficulties to that government. I should wish to point out however that this does not signify guilt in cases where someone on the spectrum has been accused of whistleblowing, hacking or leaking, something which was alledged in the case of Gareth Williams.

Kim Dotcom “Intelligent”. Has two sons who are on autistic spectrum condition. Given the hereditary nature of ASCs and given his background in computing, it is not improbable to suggest that he is either on the spectrum or neurodiverse in some other sense.

There is of course in addition my self. I have an IQ of 130 and have been diagnosed as autistic.

It might be argued that as a safeguard, those who belong in such a category should be categorised as a potential threat. When they perceive certain things the authorities would not wish to be perceived, for example the undisclosed systems of surveillance in the west or take actions in a similar fashion to the individuals listed above, they should be subject to penalties, mistreated in some fashion either through the judicial process or by for example being misdiagnosed with a mental health condition.

The reasons why this is counterproductive are outlined in the first essay. One should however see how this applies in this particular situation and again one might ask whether such a policy is to the advantage of a western government, given the following very probable situations:

A rival government does not have a policy to mistreat such individuals by for example defining them as psychotic. Their policy is instead to take advantage of the abilities and intelligence of such individuals. The difference between their approaches to those with Enhanced Perceptual Reasoning means that they are stronger than a western government. Again

A rival government wishes to seek advantage and to damage a western government by enticing an individual with enhanced perception to work for them through a recognition of their abilities and through informing them that they are being mistreated in some fashion.

Furthermore, in order to damage the reputation of a western government, the rival government makes it publicly known that that individual is being deliberately harmed by the western government.

One might argue that western governments could attempt to suppress knowledge of the importance of EPR and of the fact that it negates the possibility of psychosis. It is however difficult to forsee how this could be achieved given that:

It is doubtful whether a western government could persuade an eastern government or other bodies to suppress knowledge of its importance when it would be to their advantage not to do so. It is also doubtful whether an eastern government would suppress knowledge of its importance as they would be able to cause reputation damage to a western government and to attract individuals like those on the list or indeed anyone with an enhanced level of perception.

Through the increasingly availability of modern communications, it is difficult to see how the available data and knowledge of its importance will not become public knowledge. The policy of western governments will be become apparent to the public which would be damaging. As a consequence, there is a probability that others with EPR would look towards other countries.

Each country wishes to gain competitive advantage through the scientific discoveries which are made by those with a high degree of perception. It remains difficult to see how each one of the 196 countries in the world can all agree to cooperate for the first time on concealing such a discovery especially those countries which do not already conceal the importance of perception. In a competitive international environment, it is logical to expect that at least one country will choose not to deny but instead to take advantage of those who are highly intelligent and as a consequence of their actions have been subject to penalties, mistreated in some fashion either through the judicial process or by for example being misdiagnosed with a mental health condition.

On a related note, the mainstream media have not thusfar realised or commented upon the significance of the fact that everyone on the above list is neurodivergent. This is perhaps to be expected.

It is particularly worrying however that even journals which are devoted to intelligence related matters such as the intercept have not covered this issue but have instead, at the same time as either describing autism as an illness or being rather naive or patronising about the issue, devoted a far more significant part of journal to the discussion of matters such as gay rights and drug liberalisation which perhaps as subjects are more suited to the guardian.